MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 24 Feb 2011 23:39

Gaur wrote:malli,
Frankly, this is getting a bit tiresome. So, to repeat jai's question, what is your point?


there was no question in my last two posts. the point was that we all need to come out of the imperialism/ cold war prism and choose the best. Forget conspiracy theories. they are the last refuge of the ===. i have said what i have to say. the f-16IN is somewhat markedly superior to all the single engined birds in fray and also the 35 if we consider its payload, range, avionics etc. the hornet is simply much more role worthy and ready than the twin engine birds in fray ( USAF might contest that) the EF and Rafale are overpriced and battling for survival. everything that we buy from europe or russia will eventually end up with the chinese. atleast with the Pakis we have superior numbers to bear. with the chinks we will have inferior numbers and the same technology.

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 25 Feb 2011 00:10

ramana wrote:RahulM, There are cursory reports of FSU/Afghan AF planes being challenged by TSPA F-16s in the mid 80s.

it was covered very well in the media at that time. the russians claimed that a TSPA F16 was shot down by a Mig 21 while Time magazine wrote that it was a friendly fire incident. Much later TSPA acknowledged that the wingman shot the leader as they were still not very well trained on the sidewinder. The british actually learnt a lot of lessons from this and the sidewinder was an unqualified success in the falklands war. pse read admiral sandy woodwards ' 100 days at sea'.

Tummen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 10 Nov 2010 03:25

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Tummen » 25 Feb 2011 02:46

malli wrote:
Gaur wrote:malli,
Frankly, this is getting a bit tiresome. So, to repeat jai's question, what is your point?


there was no question in my last two posts. the point was that we all need to come out of the imperialism/ cold war prism and choose the best. Forget conspiracy theories. they are the last refuge of the ===. i have said what i have to say. the f-16IN is somewhat markedly superior to all the single engined birds in fray and also the 35 if we consider its payload, range, avionics etc. the hornet is simply much more role worthy and ready than the twin engine birds in fray ( USAF might contest that) the EF and Rafale are overpriced and battling for survival. everything that we buy from europe or russia will eventually end up with the chinese. atleast with the Pakis we have superior numbers to bear. with the chinks we will have inferior numbers and the same technology.


Malli,

Answering your post above I will first mention that I am swedish and Gripen fanboy. I am aware about this and stating this view clearly give anyone reading this post the opportunity to give my thoughts a more accurate and unbiased weight.

But, I find that you on the other hand argue in a quite slippery, fuzzy and assuming way.

About your last post only (you s**t out posts like it's manure, you know this?):

First: there certainly were 2 stubborn questions in your previous posts, contrary to what you state: about if we were sure that Rafale and Gripen NG were superior to F-16IN. So, what do you mean by stating that you did not ask us these questions? Please explain, it is confusing.

Second: Are really “all” in this forum in the need to come out of the imperialism/cold war prism?

And if we really are in the, let us call it “imperialism” prism, tell us why is this view not an accurate or at least useful picture of world politics?

Third: And if we are “all” somehow in error, and could come away from this “imperialism” view, why should the resulting choice be "the best" then? (and not before) I mean maybe the choice would still be the same?

Fourth: Comparing the F-16IN to “all the single engine birds in fray” could only mean Gripen NG, since it is the only other single engine aircraft? :roll:

Fifth: Are you sure that as you state the f-16IN is “somewhat markedly superior to Gripen NG/IN”?
If so, why? :wink:

Sixth: If “(the Super) Hornet is more battle-worthy ”than the other twin-engined competitors is debatable.

Though I am sure that F-18 have had at least a dozen times more chanses to bomb comparably defenceless Talibans (as well as totally defenceless farmers and villagers), so there Superhornet might gain a few “plus”-points as a pure bombtruck. But how well Superhornet will stack up against the euro-canards in terms of battle-worthiness among its peers or near-peers is not proved, especially if you consider superior back-up resources (like AWACs/ED-2) for USN F-18s in Iraq-war and Afghanistan.

Interestingly above reasoning leads back to the question about imperialism (point 2).
If not imperialistic, how come a comparably geographically isolated county like the US (and only the US) finds that it must “protect its interests” in poor and developing countries around the globe?

India like EU would find itself at the unfortunate receiving end compared to the US in most powergames and therefore India like EU should consider an important truism: “Divide and rule”.
If you were representing Americas interest in a multipolar game (wargame if you insist :wink: ), just how much prosperity, cooperation and peace would you wish upon and between China, India and Pakistan?

Seventh: That EF and Rafale is overpriced is debatable. We do not yet know at what price and economical conditions they have been offered to India, also we do not yet know how IAF rate their performance in Indian context. This is, also true for F-16 and F-18.

Eight: Survival; EF and Rafale is “to big to die” easily. What would France and the EF-partner countries use instead? Even the big EU-countries know that US will ask for more in return for modern weapons than it gives back, if EU can not manufacture its own weapons and have a decent defence. By the way in EU "Defence" refers to territorial defence, to not invade other countries.

Ninth: About: "European technology will eventually end up in China." I do not know about this argument. It is a hard world. Thogh I think that rather significant American weapons technology like the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb involuntary found its way from the US to China, so lets call that last argument a truce, shall we?

“Never argue with an idiot. Bystanders won't be able to tell the difference.”
I took the risk. :lol:

Best Regards "The Thumb"

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4409
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Mahendra » 25 Feb 2011 03:14

The Thumb ji

Wonderful post!

I have a minor correction to your closing statement

" Don't argue with fools, they bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4261
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Kartik » 25 Feb 2011 03:19

Cain Marko wrote:
nachiket wrote::rotfl: CM, didn't know you too were a Marathi manoos onlee.

Peewer 96 koli wonlee! Andy san, good to know that the Maratha contingent is potent in the BRF brigade - I am betting on Kartik as well, and Shankarosky, who unfortunately has by now been completely assimilated by the borg or its russki equivalent :twisted:


You're partly right CM ! I'm half-Marathi..:)

As for SHankarosky, I think the dipping fortunes of the MiG-35 made it too painful for him to come and participate on BRF actively anymore. :P

Devesh Rawal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 09:01
Location: USA

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Devesh Rawal » 25 Feb 2011 04:57

Here's a bold prediction (that I will probably get flamed for!).. :wink:

Since EADS just lost the $35 billion tanker bid for the USAF (because of a 1% cost issue), they will do whatever it takes to secure the MRCA bid for the IAF. That means dropping the price to Super-Hornet levels and Tranche-3, etc.

<hard hat on>
Shareholders in EADS have to eat too! As it were everything Tiffy has been well received in the press and Aero-India anyway. If prices are down considerably, I'm willing to bet no one on this forum will really have a major issue with the decision... but that's just me.

be 8)

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3480
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Feb 2011 08:08

^^well the little 'uns like the "plane with the smiley face" the most - so who is to deny the eurofritter? I still find the Rafale more convincing though, smiley face or not!

CM

Indaruta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 21:42

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Indaruta » 25 Feb 2011 08:29

kit wrote:
Indaruta wrote:Interesting video on the F35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNMio9zN2Q ,Wonder which one of the MMRCA competitors comes close to this,



Why compare a 4th Gen fighter (4+ or 4++ or whatever) with the 5th ? Apples and oranges. MRCA deal is about numbers and preferably a plane that would be viable for the next decade.If IAF is not able to induct them in numbers in the next 5 years, this whole 'deal' would not be a deal at all ! If such a situation comes , ideally it would make sense to go for the next generation.But India's volatile neighbourhood will not give it that kind of luxury.So devil and the deep sea, whichever way you turn, it would cost billions and lets hope some sense and sensibility prevail in the 'strategic' sense :P


Yeah agree just hope they don't burn all our hard earned money

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby chackojoseph » 25 Feb 2011 08:46

malli wrote:there was no question in my last two posts. the point was that we all need to come out of the imperialism/ cold war prism and choose the best. Forget conspiracy theories. they are the last refuge of the ===


Forgive, but not forget. Trust, but verify.

aniket
BRFite
Posts: 293
Joined: 14 Dec 2010 17:34
Location: On the top of the world

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby aniket » 25 Feb 2011 09:10

I would like to thank Shiv Aroor for bringing this topic in the limelight
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/wi ... orses.html
No use buying yankee hardware , like I said before

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23314
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Austin » 25 Feb 2011 09:24

aniket wrote:I would like to thank Shiv Aroor for bringing this topic in the limelight
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/wi ... orses.html
No use buying yankee hardware , like I said before


There is no point in making fuss over CISMOA , if we really need good hardware with all equipment and no minus to the best what is available via US exports quality arm then we need to sign cismoa and work with US , there is no point at some stage of US arm twisting us into signing this agreement , the early we sign the better for us.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1436
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 25 Feb 2011 14:30

malli wrote:
Gaur wrote:malli,
Frankly, this is getting a bit tiresome. So, to repeat jai's question, what is your point?


there was no question in my last two posts. the point was that we all need to come out of the imperialism/ cold war prism and choose the best. Forget conspiracy theories. they are the last refuge of the ===. i have said what i have to say. the f-16IN is somewhat markedly superior to all the single engined birds in fray and also the 35 if we consider its payload, range, avionics etc. the hornet is simply much more role worthy and ready than the twin engine birds in fray ( USAF might contest that) the EF and Rafale are overpriced and battling for survival. everything that we buy from europe or russia will eventually end up with the chinese. atleast with the Pakis we have superior numbers to bear. with the chinks we will have inferior numbers and the same technology.


Malli can you please quantify your statement, "the f-16IN is somewhat markedly superior to all the single engined birds in fray and also the 35 if we consider its payload, range, avionics etc.".
Forget Mig, the rafael and F/A-18 Super Hornet. I would like you to quantify the statement with respect to EFT and Grippen NG. Also I would seriously like to know how you consider F-35 to be inferior to F-16IN.

Coming out cold war/imperialism prism should not imply forgetting or unlearning all the lessons that we have learnt in the past 60 years. Or we will repeat the same mistakes as we did in the past. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result each time.

As I can see you have not refuted any of my points that I have made. Do I take it to mean that you accept these as valid points and inspite of these you are saying that India should go for F-16IN?

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Gaur » 25 Feb 2011 15:36

malli,
You want to make statements without backing them up with facts and reasoning? OK..but do not expect any of us to take you seriously. This is my last post to you on this matter.

Man, the MRCA thread has really gone to dogs. No wonder that most of the knowledgeable folks hardly take a look around here anymore.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby karan_mc » 25 Feb 2011 19:33

Sea Gripen will be ready for Indian Navy in no time: SAAB Official

So Sea Gripen will be reality only and only if Gripen Ng is selected by IAF and Navy also goes for the same platform , i think same goes to Sea Typhoon too , but incase with F-18SH and Rafale M , it can be split to keep Americans and French happy :D

sumshyam
BRFite
Posts: 553
Joined: 23 Sep 2009 19:30
Location: Ganga ki dharti.
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby sumshyam » 25 Feb 2011 19:45

karan_mc wrote:So Sea Gripen will be reality only and only if Gripen Ng is selected by IAF and Navy also goes for the same platform ,


Hamari Hindi me ek Kahawat hai....MUNGERI LAL KE HASIN SAPNE...! :twisted: :twisted:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66522
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Singha » 25 Feb 2011 22:07

if enough money is thrown at it, I am sure even a VSTOL C-130J is possible, with F135 podded lift-fan engines and 105mm guns sticking out of the side.
Last edited by Singha on 26 Feb 2011 00:14, edited 1 time in total.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2455
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Katare » 25 Feb 2011 23:58

that would be something to kill for....Ha

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cosmo_R » 26 Feb 2011 00:54

Katare wrote:that would be something to kill for....Ha


And with...

@Austin^^^: " There is no point in making fuss over CISMOA , if we really need good hardware with all equipment and no minus to the best what is available via US exports quality arm then we need to sign cismoa and work with US , there is no point at some stage of US arm twisting us into signing this agreement , the early we sign the better for us."

Exactly, negotiate hard and sign from a position of strength not right after a (example) Chinese attack and the usual post partum hand wringing breast beating.

@Devesh Rawal: IIRC, EADS pulled out all the stops to win the first contest for the USAF tankers. I don't think they have any more stops left :)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52440
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby ramana » 26 Feb 2011 02:29

Austin< CS Monitor reports the BECA and CISMOA were not signed as expected during BO visit. And read the KS Garu's last interview about Cold War mindset about agreements etc.
GOI is serious about those two agreements.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kit » 26 Feb 2011 09:38

What is CISMOA?

http://www.8ak.in/8ak_india_defence_new ... ismoa.html

Not complete in 'small' details though.Sometimes that do matter.

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Pogula » 26 Feb 2011 12:48

It is amusing to hear some people claim that sooner or later India will sign the CISMOA. Well, do not forget that the decision makers are in Delhi, and not Islamabad. In Delhi, the democratically elected government is vulnerable to a very aggressive opposition over matters pertaining to national sovereignty, especially given the lessons learnt from our past.

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Pogula » 26 Feb 2011 13:14

I am a huge fan of the Eurofighter Typhoon, and also wanted the EJ200 (with possible thrust vectoring) to win the Tejas MK2 engine bid. But, the developments over the past one year strongly suggest an inclination of either IAF or MoD to get the Gripen NG as our MMRCA fighter.

1. The competition itself was a stop-gap measure taken in desperation to replace a depleting Mig fleet. I see no point in going for an expensive twin-engined fighter to fulfill this requirement.

2. The F414's selection for Tejas MK2 seems to be a very well-thought-out decision on part of GoI/MoD which directly favours the Gripen & F/A-18SH.

3. The usual CISMOA et al BS will definitely work against F/A-18SH as compared to the Gripen (and again, why twin engined?)

4. There is a possibility of installing the Kaveri GTX in both Gripen NG and Tejas MK2/3 when it does get clearance some time down this decade... which is clearly another strong point for the Gripen NG.

5. Gripen NG is very cheap, promises high ToT and has some very good features (short take off, unprepared airstrip operations, cheaper life-cycle costs, and such) suitable to the Indian conditions/needs.

The only logical reason for MoD to choose another fighter (especially a twin-engined fighter) would solely be to absorb specific high-level technologies that Gripen can't provide for the benefit of our indigenous 5th gen programs.

***Choosing F/A-18SH for the IN and Gripen NG for the IAF would also work out (as they share a lot of commonalities), if American lobbyists are successful in cornering our babus with their ever-persuasive greasing techniques.***

My heart is with the EF Typhoon, but my mind is with the Saab Gripen NG. Just my dho-anna about who might win.

SidGupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 12:32

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SidGupta » 26 Feb 2011 15:30

Unfortunately, the day the original MRCA was redrafted as the MMRCA, the Gripen NG/IN lost, imho.

The aircraft just doesnt have the size to offer the payload and operational radius of the other competitors.

I understand given the delays in the LCA program and the anticipated induction of the MRCA craft only by 2017-2020, the IAF/MoD took a longer term stance with the MRCA, hence taking into account the larger and longer-term strategic posturing against China, rather than just Pakistan. Hence opting for a heavier fighter, not as large as the significantly potent Su30MKI, but not as light as the MiG21s or the Tejas.

The Gripen NG is far too similar to the Tejas Mk2, and serves no purpose whatsoever, apart from posing a relatively (to other 5 contenders) lower lifetime cost.

It offers no long-term technological edge or political/strategic edge that the others do, while being just frankly, too small/light (i.e. payload and range) and too similar to the Tejas Mk2.

As ive said multiple times in this thread, my guesses
- If its an economic decision, it will be the F/A18 Shornet
- If its not, then the Rafale. It simply edges out the EF on almost all factors, except A-2-A performance.

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Pogula » 26 Feb 2011 15:47

@SidGupta
You do have a point with the argument of unneeded redundancy of selecting a Gripen NG.
But, 'A2A' role is for Su30MKIs anyway. So, maybe this means the Rafale or F/A-18SH will be selected for 'A2G' and 'Su30MKI-complement-in-A2A' roles.
Given the engine choice for Tejas MK2, like I said before, F/A-18SH seems to be the next best contender.

But again, what exactly is IAF planning on doing with so many twin-engined fighters in its fleet?
FGFA, AMCA, MMRCA, Su-30MKI... At this rate, 70% of IAF fighters will be twin-engined by 2025 to 2030. That is ridiculous.
The whole point was to field a reasonable number of high-end air-superiority fighters and a large number of low-cost multi-role fighters; similar to the F-15/F-16 combo of USAF. I do not see how choosing a twin-engined MMRCA fits into the whole scenario.
Last edited by Pogula on 26 Feb 2011 17:06, edited 1 time in total.

sumshyam
BRFite
Posts: 553
Joined: 23 Sep 2009 19:30
Location: Ganga ki dharti.
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby sumshyam » 26 Feb 2011 16:29


Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1170
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Nihat » 26 Feb 2011 16:53

From Livefist. Apologies if posted before

Without a communications interoperability and security memorandum of agreement (CISMOA) or information security (INFOSEC) agreement between India and the United States, the Boeing F/A-18I Super Hornet and Lockheed-Martin F-16IN Super Viper -- both contenders in the IAF's $12-billion M-MRCA aircraft competition -- won't come with certain pieces of equipment that are categorized under the highly restricted US C4ISR list. While a specific list of the withheld equipment is not yet available, my sources sent me this list:

* IFF transponder equipment (Mode IV IFF CRYPTO)
* "KY" radios
* GPS/PPS
* Data links
* Sensor source codes for all AN/APG

According to the same sources, US rules dictate that exceptions can be made on a case by case basis, and that India doesn't need to sign the CISMOA if it is granted a waiver by the US government. However, that may not be the case any more. To quote from a 16 March 2006 policy memorandum authored by USAF Lt Gen (Retd) Jeffrey B. Kohler, then head of the Pentagon's foreign military sales agency (and since 2008, ahem, VP at Boeing IDS for international strategy):

Transfers of U.S. C4ISR systems to eligible countries and international organizations must support a U.S. Combatant Commander’s (COCOM) interoperability requirements. The COCOM must require the transfer of the capability. A purchaser’s desire to be interoperable with the United States is insufficient justification for release. Additionally, the purchaser must negotiate and sign a Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) or other bilateral INFOSEC agreement (e.g., COMSEC MOU, INFOSEC Equipment Agreement) with the COCOM, prior to physically receiving any U.S. INFOSEC products or services associated with a secure C4ISR system. The COCOM and the purchaser’s authorized official sign the bilateral CISMOA unless covered under a multilateral treaty and/or separate bilateral agreements, which negates the requirement to sign a CISMOA. The COCOM may negotiate exceptions to a CISMOA on a case-by-case basis. A purchaser should be approved for access to classified C4ISR data and INFOSEC prior to submitting a C4ISR Letter of Request (LOR).

Interestingly, a year later on 23 March 2007, Kohler rescinded the earlier policy. In the new one, among a lot else, the line noting the possibility of exceptions to CISMOA on a case-by-case basis was summarily expunged. No exceptions.

When I asked the Indian Air Force chief last in October last year about his concerns with the CISMOA overhang and what it would strip from American aircraft being delivered to his force, he had said it would make no substantial difference. Someone needs to ask him specifically about the M-MRCA.



I have never really understood the argument about Absorbing american tech. , if they are not going to share the tech. then what on earth are we going to absorb. Today, the europeans and Russins have some excellent tech. offerings and without the baggae that Americans have (previous post) and we are already colllaborating with the Russins on what is their best technology till date, how much more does the Public sector need in terms of blueprints and screwdriver tech.

I don't see anything special about the American jets aside from the AESA and some aspects of the weapons package and frankly that hardly seems enough for which we should compromise national security. In case of the C-17's and C-130J, americans had some good offerings which were not available elsewhere and so they are good buys, but we have better options for MMRCA.

SH has some serious pounding power but so does MKI and while F-16 is an excellent dogfighter, the PAK-FA will be another generation and another league.

The GoI would rather pay more to the French and EADS than compromise on quality and design. Without any bias towards or against USA and on pure technical capability and relevence, Unkil's birds are good but not great.

I hope MoD acts fast now and puts this circus to an end.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Viv S » 26 Feb 2011 17:33

* IFF transponder equipment (Mode IV IFF CRYPTO)
* "KY" radios
* GPS/PPS
* Data links
* Sensor source codes for all AN/APG


The first four aren't really big losses. Indian equipment can replace it and will probably be a better fit for the IAF's C4I network.

Its the last one that's a real obstacle. Buying the SH without all sensor source codes is plain no-no.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1436
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 26 Feb 2011 18:08


This arrow is aimed directly at the heart of Grippen. :( :( :(



Nihat wrote:From Livefist. Apologies if posted before

Without a communications interoperability and security memorandum of agreement (CISMOA) or information security (INFOSEC) agreement between India and the United States, the Boeing F/A-18I Super Hornet and Lockheed-Martin F-16IN Super Viper -- both contenders in the IAF's $12-billion M-MRCA aircraft competition -- won't come with certain pieces of equipment that are categorized under the highly restricted US C4ISR list. While a specific list of the withheld equipment is not yet available, my sources sent me this list:

* IFF transponder equipment (Mode IV IFF CRYPTO)
* "KY" radios
* GPS/PPS
* Data links
* Sensor source codes for all AN/APG

According to the same sources, US rules dictate that exceptions can be made on a case by case basis, and that India doesn't need to sign the CISMOA if it is granted a waiver by the US government. However, that may not be the case any more. To quote from a 16 March 2006 policy memorandum authored by USAF Lt Gen (Retd) Jeffrey B. Kohler, then head of the Pentagon's foreign military sales agency (and since 2008, ahem, VP at Boeing IDS for international strategy):

Transfers of U.S. C4ISR systems to eligible countries and international organizations must support a U.S. Combatant Commander’s (COCOM) interoperability requirements. The COCOM must require the transfer of the capability. A purchaser’s desire to be interoperable with the United States is insufficient justification for release. Additionally, the purchaser must negotiate and sign a Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) or other bilateral INFOSEC agreement (e.g., COMSEC MOU, INFOSEC Equipment Agreement) with the COCOM, prior to physically receiving any U.S. INFOSEC products or services associated with a secure C4ISR system. The COCOM and the purchaser’s authorized official sign the bilateral CISMOA unless covered under a multilateral treaty and/or separate bilateral agreements, which negates the requirement to sign a CISMOA. The COCOM may negotiate exceptions to a CISMOA on a case-by-case basis. A purchaser should be approved for access to classified C4ISR data and INFOSEC prior to submitting a C4ISR Letter of Request (LOR).

Interestingly, a year later on 23 March 2007, Kohler rescinded the earlier policy. In the new one, among a lot else, the line noting the possibility of exceptions to CISMOA on a case-by-case basis was summarily expunged. No exceptions.

When I asked the Indian Air Force chief last in October last year about his concerns with the CISMOA overhang and what it would strip from American aircraft being delivered to his force, he had said it would make no substantial difference. Someone needs to ask him specifically about the M-MRCA.



I have never really understood the argument about Absorbing american tech. , if they are not going to share the tech. then what on earth are we going to absorb. Today, the europeans and Russins have some excellent tech. offerings and without the baggae that Americans have (previous post) and we are already colllaborating with the Russins on what is their best technology till date, how much more does the Public sector need in terms of blueprints and screwdriver tech.

I don't see anything special about the American jets aside from the AESA and some aspects of the weapons package and frankly that hardly seems enough for which we should compromise national security. In case of the C-17's and C-130J, americans had some good offerings which were not available elsewhere and so they are good buys, but we have better options for MMRCA.


I would really wonder how the proponents of F-16IN and F/A-18 would react to this. Specifically I would like to see the comments from a recent poster in this forum.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby RoyG » 26 Feb 2011 18:49

I have a feeling that the Rafale is going to win. No intrusive contracts, dassault is probably desperate for an export order, DRDO-Snecma Kaveri deal, and Rafale seems like an overall complete system. I also remember reading that the French wanted to gift us 40 rafales for the SFC requirement. It'd be great if we could get 40 in one shot if we gifted Dassault the contract.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 26 Feb 2011 19:13

I have never really understood the argument about Absorbing american tech. , if they are not going to share the tech. then what on earth are we going to absorb.


If a tech is not shared, as you point out, there is nothing to absorb. However, a recipient needs to be able to absorb techs that are shared. And, India - like many other nations - does not have the bandwidth to absorb some techs. MKI has been given as an example on BR, not all of what was planned to be absorbed (in 90s) is absorbed (in 2011).

Today, the europeans and Russins have some excellent tech. offerings and without the baggae that Americans have (previous post) and we are already colllaborating with the Russins on what is their best technology till date, how much more does the Public sector need in terms of blueprints and screwdriver tech.


1) The head of the French Sub company - just two weeks ago - was complaining about Indian inability to absorb high tech. The Russians, while negotiating for the FGFA, were very upfront about Indian capabilities. So, I am fairly confident that India is not where she ought to be even with Indian officials stating they can absorb high techs.
2) US v.s other: we have been through such discussions. The US is way to ahead in most techs and has a far more robust R&D effort than other - even perhaps combined others. Having said that it does not mean that US techs are the best for India.

I would really wonder how the proponents of F-16IN and F/A-18 would react to this. Specifically I would like to see the comments from a recent poster in this forum.


[Not quite a proponent, however ..........]

Said this before, the US will re-word all these agreements - or perhaps add an addendum, whatever - to make it happen. And, like one of the US Gen (rtd) stated a week or so ago, who in India is talking about one of the agreements any more. In fact since the US allowed for export of dual use equipment, US officials have been "inspecting" equipment in Bangaluru - per Indian news papers (which I had posted).

My feel is THE issue is - as stated by an IAF person - inadvertent release of India info to the Pakis by the US - Pakis are also signatories to these agreements.

No intrusive contracts, dassault is probably desperate................


All of them are desperate for this contract. However, France will also give only what it wants to give. They are not going to give everything that India wants. Russia is not going to give everything India wants for the FGFA, which is why they negotiated a 65-35% split with India for the FGFA - Russia will release JUST enough to make the FGFA happen and nothing more. And, all that is fine - I for one do not expect them to give everything - that would be silly.


One more word on the CISMOA. It is a communications agreement. All it means is that in the event Indian security forces need to communicate with the US security forces that there are agreements in place and systems that are compatible. Two points here: A) Today when Indo-US forces train/whatever they do, such agreements are written up and signed by both parties AND then they work out the technical issues - digital protocols, etc, etc, etc - to make the communication happen. So, it is not that it is not happening today. It is the same with any other nation Indian forces deal with: Russia, Singapore, UK, Japan, whoever. And, B ) Some thing like CISMOA exists within US forces or US gov agencies. So, if USAF needs to establish communication/send data/whatever to say USN, they have agreements between them - signed, etc. The CISMOA - as far as I can see - is such a formalized protocol (verbal and digital). I am not sure how one can be intrusive in such systems. One has to allow others to communicate to be allowed to listen in, etc. JMTs.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 316
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Boreas » 26 Feb 2011 20:27

Cain Marko wrote:
Boreas wrote:The strength of MKI's alone is not enough. We need more.
Why? Because you say so? Can you back that up with some decent data (or atleast reasonable logic based on some facts)? And if we do need more a few more MKIs won't do any harm? Also, if we do need more, why won't upgraded Mirages/Mig-29s or LCAs not suffice?

If we buy a EF/Rafale it will be operational and relevant till 2050. Both France and EADS don't have any other fighter development program and hence will continue supporting them.Mig29/Mirage are more then 2 decade old designs, to maintain numbers we may upgrade what we already have. BUT buying more of them will be stupidity. If IAF will induct a plane in 2014-15 it will need supplies atleast for coming 3 decades.

Patent bakwas - the IAF is committed to supporting these a/cs till around 2030 anyways, adding a few more to the existing inventory will be a LOT easier than setting up entirely new infrastructure to support the MRCA. Also, if buying such a/c was stupidity, the IAF would not have shown so much interest in the Qatari M2ks.

.
.

Even there manufacturers have not pitched them in the competition, because they knew these planes cant fulfill the requirements IAF have. Your proposition lacks merit right there

Of course, manufacturers decided to pull out their contenders because how utterly useless they were - couldn't have been that it might have been too costly to maintain lines for a/c that had no orders (M2k). Btw, I am surprised that with your great vision you have not noticed how most of the birds in contention are uber variants of legacy frames with v.strong lineages that date back to the 70s.

CM


God you are one confused lad! :)

I dun know WHAT kind of dream world you are living, in which IAF is showing interest in second hand M2K's from Qatar.. and is going to buy more upgraded M29 (instead of M35.. if at all it has to buy Russian bird). In our planet.. in the REAL world.. where we normal people live.. IAF has floated a tender for buying Medium Multirole Combat Aircrafts.

Now, you are stubborn enough or closed minded enough to not get what i wrote above.. so hence forth I won't bother reason with you.

I tell you something derived from common sense.

1. IAF knows more then you, about its requirements [say YES..]
2. And IAF has floated a tender for 126+ MMRCA.
3. IAF knows it has 270 MKIs, still it has floated this tender it means, IAF needs more besides MKI.
4. Also it means IAF thinks it is not wise to upgrade M29 or BUY 2nd hand M2k from Qatar (gosh)
5. IAF/MoD is paying so much emphasis on TOT, hence they must be sure of getting important technological inputs.

6. To summarize - IAF won't bother doing all this unless IAF thinks adding these MMRCAs is essential for its operational requirements.
Hence your slogan that 'MRCA is not needed' is only making you look extremely ______ (choose an appropriate word like genius etc and fill) that.

7. and IAF also thinks you really don't understand evrything you read. :mrgreen:

[This may help - Try to read 3-4 words at a time, take a pause, try to get what that part means.. then move on. It will take time. But eventually your comprehension skills will get "upgraded"]
Last edited by Boreas on 26 Feb 2011 20:41, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 26 Feb 2011 20:38

Boreas,

Is there a need to quote the entire post?

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 316
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Boreas » 26 Feb 2011 20:42

:) I too realized that.

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Arya Sumantra » 26 Feb 2011 21:40

Nihat wrote: I don't see anything special about the American jets aside from the AESA and some aspects of the weapons package and frankly that hardly seems enough for which we should compromise national security.


+1. Signing up for intrusive agreements for a special kit that is bought in limited numbers and is something out of the world and available from only one source country is different like say a B2 stealth for example. But tying yourself up for something like a 4th gen fighter plane for which there are so many competitors to choose from is beyond logic.

The people in polygon building need to rethink their control-freak vision of the world and undertake regulatory reforms and modify their stand on ToT. Whether the Mil-Ind-Complex of US will play the same savior role in its economically distressed times as the MIC of the Russkies played for them in their troubled times will largely depend on whether these people remove the regulatory friction(EUMA, Cismoa etc) piled up in cold-war era and prepare for atleast a ToT on components where mutual confidence is necessary. Otherwise they can be content with partial successes and watch as even their current market countries, the world over, progress with their own programs in partnerships.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2212
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby VinodTK » 26 Feb 2011 22:12



If Govt of India and the IAF know that they will not be able to get US aircraft with the required configuration, I wonder as to why F16 and F18 were even considered as contenders? Waste of time and money.

If the reason for including them was to put pressure on on other manufacturers, I do not think it will work. Because the French and euro fighter manufacturers will find out the reason for the inclusion of US manufacturers and will not budge on the price. I feel we are missing something, in all our discussions.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 26 Feb 2011 22:29

I feel we are missing something, in all our discussions.


Mostly fear, based on a lack of knowledge.

...........Signing up for intrusive agreements .............these people remove the regulatory friction(EUMA, Cismoa etc)........


The REAL "intrusive" - End-Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) - has already been signed!!!!!!

In 2009!!!!

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby aditya.agd » 26 Feb 2011 22:54

Thankyou for your wonderful insights.

I fear one more Scam in this deal that may hurt our already damaged reputation. While we are discussing the technical pros and cons, the Govt of India decides on a winner based on a pre-match winner.... Anything can happen. So let us keep our fingers crossed and hope that the deal goes through to non_American companies and IAF does get a world class airplane to defend India from Chi-pak.

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 27 Feb 2011 00:38

Malli,

Answering your post above I will first mention that I am swedish and Gripen fanboy. I am aware about this and stating this view clearly give anyone reading this post the opportunity to give my thoughts a more accurate and unbiased weight.

But, I find that you on the other hand argue in a quite slippery, fuzzy and assuming way.

About your last post only (you s**t out posts like it's manure, you know this?):

First: there certainly were 2 stubborn questions in your previous posts, contrary to what you state: about if we were sure that Rafale and Gripen NG were superior to F-16IN. So, what do you mean by stating that you did not ask us these questions? Please explain, it is confusing.

Second: Are really “all” in this forum in the need to come out of the imperialism/cold war prism?

And if we really are in the, let us call it “imperialism” prism, tell us why is this view not an accurate or at least useful picture of world politics?

Third: And if we are “all” somehow in error, and could come away from this “imperialism” view, why should the resulting choice be "the best" then? (and not before) I mean maybe the choice would still be the same?

Fourth: Comparing the F-16IN to “all the single engine birds in fray” could only mean Gripen NG, since it is the only other single engine aircraft? :roll:

Fifth: Are you sure that as you state the f-16IN is “somewhat markedly superior to Gripen NG/IN”?
If so, why? :wink:

Sixth: If “(the Super) Hornet is more battle-worthy ”than the other twin-engined competitors is debatable.

Though I am sure that F-18 have had at least a dozen times more chanses to bomb comparably defenceless Talibans (as well as totally defenceless farmers and villagers), so there Superhornet might gain a few “plus”-points as a pure bombtruck. But how well Superhornet will stack up against the euro-canards in terms of battle-worthiness among its peers or near-peers is not proved, especially if you consider superior back-up resources (like AWACs/ED-2) for USN F-18s in Iraq-war and Afghanistan.

Interestingly above reasoning leads back to the question about imperialism (point 2).
If not imperialistic, how come a comparably geographically isolated county like the US (and only the US) finds that it must “protect its interests” in poor and developing countries around the globe?

India like EU would find itself at the unfortunate receiving end compared to the US in most powergames and therefore India like EU should consider an important truism: “Divide and rule”.
If you were representing Americas interest in a multipolar game (wargame if you insist :wink: ), just how much prosperity, cooperation and peace would you wish upon and between China, India and Pakistan?

Seventh: That EF and Rafale is overpriced is debatable. We do not yet know at what price and economical conditions they have been offered to India, also we do not yet know how IAF rate their performance in Indian context. This is, also true for F-16 and F-18.

Eight: Survival; EF and Rafale is “to big to die” easily. What would France and the EF-partner countries use instead? Even the big EU-countries know that US will ask for more in return for modern weapons than it gives back, if EU can not manufacture its own weapons and have a decent defence. By the way in EU "Defence" refers to territorial defence, to not invade other countries.

Ninth: About: "European technology will eventually end up in China." I do not know about this argument. It is a hard world. Thogh I think that rather significant American weapons technology like the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb involuntary found its way from the US to China, so lets call that last argument a truce, shall we?

“Never argue with an idiot. Bystanders won't be able to tell the difference.”
I took the risk. :lol:

Best Regards "The Thumb"


Great to know that you are swedish and a gripen fanboy. I am an indian and am most directly affected by the decision in the MMRCA. i would only like to say that my kid is likely to fly the chosen one. i am not in corporate employment and am not a lobbyist. I also dont have any favourites like everyone in the media now has or seems to have. i have operated the soviet and european hardware till pretty recently and have come to believe that these are pretty below par compared to the american hardware. In the Falklands it was the F1 and the Etendards against the harrier and the sidewinder. absolutely heroic on the part of the argies. but the sidewinder was the decisive factor. Cut to the Gulf war 1. Migs against the teens. we all know where that went. wrong tactics , superior force et all. the apologists can scream. the result we all know.
Being swedish to plumb for anti-imperialism smacks of taking us for granted. we can give you welfarism. anti-imperialism??? you even understand that? you say about america invading small nations. do you know that every somali pirate wants to surrender to a scandanavian navy rather that the indian or the russian or the american one?? let the middle east implode now and when oil screams its way past 200 $ per barrel everyone will scream that it is again an american conspiracy.get real.
The absolute joke is that after having gained the most from being allied to the americans and built up your defence industry on the basis of your access to their tech, now you are resorting to a juvenile argument to deny India the same.
so you can supply AEW's to Pakistan, Russia can supply AEW's, SU-30's, Mig MFI's, fighter engines, Shi-Lang, Fregat Radars, LRSAM's, etc, the europeans can supply aero-engines, helicopters, aircraft carrier subsystems, composite tech, etc. but disqualify the teens because the americans supply hardware to the paki's. Isnt it a fact that all the winter hardware was bought from sweden by pakistan prior kargil?
It would be better to compare products only on merit. like i said before if anyone can give a single example where our PSU's have altered source codes to our advantage i would buy that argument.we havent even changed the source codes of marine navigation radars. period.
no thumb here. only a royal salute to a product of a welfare state brought up on North sea oil and pension funds, not to forget from remittences by overseas brides in america.
Last edited by Rahul M on 27 Feb 2011 10:56, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: do learn to use the quote tag.

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Arya Sumantra » 27 Feb 2011 01:26

NRao wrote:
I feel we are missing something, in all our discussions.


Mostly fear, based on a lack of knowledge.

Nothing of that sort. Here's how our "open minded" surrender brigade works. When we are unwilling out of precaution, the surrender brigade cries "prejudice", when we become willing and sign away our interests the surrender brigade says "oh but india did that willingly".

NRao wrote:
...........Signing up for intrusive agreements .............these people remove the regulatory friction(EUMA, Cismoa etc)........


The REAL "intrusive" - End-Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) - has already been signed!!!!!!

In 2009!!!!

Unfortunately, yes. MMS sold us away by signing a blanket agreement regardless of the purchase to allow monitor of what was our property and that's why I consider that too as effectively a lease. And I was pitching for a EUMA waiver for mmrca and all subsequent sales for such equipments of crucial dependence. The sooner the two countries roll-back EUMA the better it would be for both otherwise it will cast its shadow on every proposed buy. Signing it does not means we are comfortable with each and every of our equipment bought from them being open to their intrusion.
Last edited by Arya Sumantra on 27 Feb 2011 02:24, edited 2 times in total.

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 27 Feb 2011 01:39

Christopher Sidor wrote:

This arrow is aimed directly at the heart of Grippen. :( :( :(




give me break sidor.
everything that you mentioned as being denied except for the source codes is a requirement of the IAF as the protocols are different. we definitely dont want the same IFF as the USAF. same with everything else.
about source codes read my earlier posts. the present organisation of PSU's cant do much even when the codes are available. also if you can pse give me an example of past deals when the codes were made available to india by either russia, france, UK, EU or scandanavia??
A lot of people here dont really understand what source codes are. in military terms its not about the ability to add on. its alogarithms and signal processing. you put a radar on the shore and run multiple targets against it in various weather conditions with the intention of removing operator discretion. for AEGIS, arguably the most advanced radar system, a lot of work is done in bangalore by the private sector. we have amazing talent here. but it is not in BEL or HAL.
Look at Mig 21 produced by India and China. did we export a single Mig 21??? did we dare to change the Mig 21 to make it better on our own. all upgrades were soviet driven and they were never economically viable for export.
now about american tech. it simply has the best record because almost all its allies seem to have a robust domestic defence industry. its not the same with russia or the EU.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests